If I were scum and could choose my partner, jimbob would be the clear choice. I have worked with him as scum in the past, and if it weren't for the surprise twist at the end, we would have won that game. The way he appears to be hunting scum while in fact being scum is superb.

As for mass-claims, I would in most cases wait until a couple of nights have passed, as the night results could counter a claim. But given the small number of players here, perhaps it would be helpful to do so on the morrow? I don't know how easy it would be for scum to predict our powers given our roles, so it's hard to judge at what point a mass-claim would be giving more useful info to town than to scum.

We heartily thank those who hath given their opinion and desire yond others shall followeth their fine example. As f'r our own stance on these matters:

1. Having an experienc'd partner at our side is a most wondrous advantage but making new connections is equally important. Therefore we would have liked to see freezeblade as our partner with whom we hadst only but a handful of interactions ere.2. We doth not believeth yond a Lyncher is present as in the previous game, howev'r in our opinion revealing powerful abilities like the capacity to save thy cousin from otherwise certain doom gives villains moo useful information than it tenders benefits to us. Given our numbers being even and barring some strange happenings at one point No Lynch might beest advisable, we bethink thither is plenty time to hunt ere resorting to mass-claims (though they shall beest behoveful at some point).

I doth thank thee for the compliment SirGabriel. As for myself, I would say that either SirGabriel or heuristically_alone would be my own preferred partner in crime. SirGabriel I doth always find hard to read, so wouldst no doubt also be hard to read by others. heuristically_alone I believe is not known here amongst us, and it doth be normal for us to show friendship to those who are not known for the first day. I wouldst be confident enough in mine own skills that I wouldst also not be killed on the first day, and so I would hope to have gained an advantage by the second day.

To me it doth seem that a mass-claim on the first or second day would be too soon, but come the third our secret roles we should reveal. The great mod hath indicated that a series of safe claims art available for the villains, and so mass claiming doth seem to me to be unlikely to reveal information. However, if any doth have information come the next day, it seemeth me clear that they should reveal it immediately. By such information it should be clear who we have no need to fear.

A question I do now pose, for the speech of heuristically_alone hath confused me some:

heuristically_alone wrote:Full of envie for a brutusI feel but maketh notThe Villainous creature nearethAnd after he we must be.

Sayest thou that we must kill Brutus, or that he ist one who we have no need to fear, and is indeed a friend amongst us?

Early it yet is, but I feel I should make an attempt to distinguish those I fear from those who seemeth me good:SirGabriel - He doth start with trying to get us to discuss. To me it doth not make sense how knowing a discard can help one discern one who speaks falsehoods.Sabrar - He doth feel to me the same as he doth normally play. Alas, that telleth me little, for it feeleth to me that he doth be like I and striveth to play the same as both villain and hero.freezeblade - He doth speak more than in other games on the first day. I believe that this do be in part because of the post restriction.heuristically_alone - This one's posts I do find the hardest to understand. He giveth hints to his role and emotion, which doth probably not be useful at this point. Drops his (presumably) joke vote because he liked Carlington's post. Another question I pose to you - to what purpose was your vote on Carlington? Wast it in the nature as mine and other votes were? And wast there reason more than that you liked Carlington's post as to why you dropped it?DJ - Only one post this fellow doth make. A more vocal role I feel would be helpful.Echo - Hath likely chosen a female character for her role. I do not understand the question "And jimbob... was that third role less noble or comedic?" Mayhaps you would care to explain it further, so that I can an answer give. Echo hath attempted to examine the rejected roles for clues. This doth seem like a good idea, for other clues are as yet lacking.Carlington - Hath contributed but little up 'til now, though he doth not be the quietest one here.

To conclude, I will say that I find it hard to form a firm belief at this time. I will therefore pronounce that I believe Sabrar, SirGabriel, Echo have all attempted to discuss or seek those who mean harm and thus can be trusted. freezeblade doth not feel to me as bad as he would normally on the first day. DJ and Carlington hath said very little, and should say more. heuristially_alone hath given hints and suggestions as to what he doth know but they do be so mixed with words of verse that it be hard to see what he is trying to say. Early it is, and such my belief is not yet firm, but lest I be caught without a vote, I will vote for one of our quieter fellows:

jimbobmacdoodle wrote:SirGabriel - He doth start with trying to get us to discuss. To me it doth not make sense how knowing a discard can help one discern one who speaks falsehoods.

It won't be as helpful as last game, but it is not likely that people are picking their players at random. Just as Cyndaquil seemed out of place as a third choice with Mewtwo and Zapdos, so I would be troubled by one who claimed to reject Hamlet and Macbeth and later claimed to be the Third Lord of Pentapolis.

As for my reads:Carlington: Picked Hamlet and Lady Macbeth. Likely has a major role from a play of like genre. Only two posts this day, both in sonnets, which he admits are useful for one who wants to deceive. Not much content.Djehutynakht: Picked Fool and Iago. I can't well predict what role he has. Only one post, thinks it pointless to reveal chosen roles but still does so, no other content.Echo: Picked Titania and Lady Macbeth. Likely a strong female role of royal or noble class. Has a few long posts, appears to be sincere in hunting scum.freezeblade: Picked Rosencrantz+Guildenstern and Falstaff. Likely has a role I've heard of, but not a title role. Three posts, not a lot of content but more than his normal day 1 meta.Alone: Picked the 3 Witches and Macbeth. I'm inclined to think that, as both are from the same play, his third pick is from elsewhere, but I could be wrong. Still, I would expect a well-known role from a well-known play. Has a few posts, claimed to have hinted at his role but has said nothing else that makes any sense.jimbob: Picked Horatio and Sir Toby Belch. Says his choices were well-known roles from three different plays of which he has some knowledge. A major but not title role from Romeo and Juliet or Macbeth would not be out of place, but as I have never heard of Sir Toby Belch, he could just as well be from a less well known work. Seems to be hunting scum, and first to make a reads post (also first to make a real vote), but I will not be too hasty to put my trust in this sly one.Sabrar: If I'm reading right, picked Benedick and Claudio, both from Much Ado About Nothing. I would not be shocked to find him claim a third role from this play. Has a few posts, asks some strange questions to start people talking.

I do not wish to be hasty in making my vote, but right now I am not liking Carlington, DJ, or Alone, while Echo and Sabrar are my best guesses for townies.

I fear our style begets miscommunicationPray, be aware for mistaken information.Gabriel, good sir, I did not think it pointless to nameThe roles we did not adorn for the game. (editor's note: I think I left out a question mark on the last line when talking about this subject in my last post)

To answer your queries, o noble Sabrar,For a good scum-bud I might not look far.I'd best work with someone I know.Freezeblade, Jimbob, maybe Gabriel would go.As for a mass-claim I'm not sure on what day,Though another option there be--shall each claim his play?

And one more question for my own, but here I do jest,Art thou in this doodle, one of Google's own best?(see below for thine noble doodle)

I agree with fair Gabriel, Echo's a fine lady's roleAnd to play from Macbeth was Heuristic's true goal.Echo did say she listed roles without order true.While jimbob an exact list doth hew. Gabriel himself gave the game awayThat he himself is a very high "A".

I hast not much more to say in analysis of verse.With Freezeblade I concur, with day 1 I'm terse.Although I make of our Mafia games good funFor this post I've nothing more; I'm done.

jimbobmacdoodle wrote:Alone: Picked the 3 Witches and Macbeth. I'm inclined to think that, as both are from the same play, his third pick is from elsewhere, but I could be wrong. Still, I would expect a well-known role from a well-known play. Has a few posts, claimed to have hinted at his role but has said nothing else that makes any sense.

Dear SirGabriel,Thy reading of me is clean and pureLet us team together and place scum in manure.'Tis irrelevant as of yet the roles which we playBut hark so you know, my noble is on Google's doodle today.

jimbobmacdoodle wrote:heuristically_alone I believe is not known here amongst us, and it doth be normal for us to show friendship to those who are not known for the first day.

A question I do now pose, for the speech of heuristically_alone hath confused me some:

heuristically_alone wrote:Full of envie for a brutusI feel but maketh notThe Villainous creature nearethAnd after he we must be.

Sayest thou that we must kill Brutus, or that he ist one who we have no need to fear, and is indeed a friend amongst us?

I accept thy invitation of friendship on this sacred first dayFor thy hospitality, it certaineth makes me gay.Answereth I thy question, now hear me out well.(With hopes that no mafia heareth and causes the ring of my funeral bell)It could be a pointless emotion the Lord granted among us allBut if a player be a Brutus, surely he must fall.

As for my vote against sweet Carlington,'Twas against my intentionTo be serious of natureSimply chosen because it rhymeth with question.

SirGabriel wrote:If I were scum and could choose my partner, jimbob would be the clear choice. I have worked with him as scum in the past, and if it weren't for the surprise twist at the end, we would have won that game. The way he appears to be hunting scum while in fact being scum is superb.

One quick thing to add, if you were town, there is absolutely no advantage to stating this fact as it gives no help. As a mafia, it could be useful because it it subtle in creating the illusion in a trusting manner of you stating you are not mafia, which I find suspicious.

Echo244 wrote:With both restrictions on posts, and active encouragement for Shakespearean tributes, I fear thou shalt find this a most verbose game with nuggets of content lost amidst the flowers of language.

Our concern was mainly due to the fact yond thee tooketh a whole paragraph to just list the discarded roles without very much achieving aught (eke thy line about 'Eight Characters from Eight Plays' hath seemed like filler as again thee mention'd it without drawing any conclusions). Howev'r others has't done the same by anon so we wonneth't hold it 'gainst thee in the future.

On another note the language of the solitary gentleman is troubling. Could he really beest so openly a Lyncher f'r Brutus? But then the latter would be almost forsooth Town and names wouldn't necessarily betoken alignment...

Echo244 wrote:With both restrictions on posts, and active encouragement for Shakespearean tributes, I fear thou shalt find this a most verbose game with nuggets of content lost amidst the flowers of language.

Our concern was mainly due to the fact yond thee tooketh a whole paragraph to just list the discarded roles without very much achieving aught (eke thy line about 'Eight Characters from Eight Plays' hath seemed like filler as again thee mention'd it without drawing any conclusions). Howev'r others has't done the same by anon so we wonneth't hold it 'gainst thee in the future.

On another note the language of the solitary gentleman is troubling. Could he really beest so openly a Lyncher f'r Brutus? But then the latter would be almost forsooth Town and names wouldn't necessarily betoken alignment...

Here lies my reasoning: If a lyncher is among us, they must be from the same play as their victim, no? And hence, either the mod lies plainly, and tells us up is down... or weaves a more delicate thread with the truth, and there are both characters with plays in common, and characters that appear in more than one play. Particularly, if any here have been swept along in the great events that bore the Hollow Crown to, in the end, a seemingly worthy King, then much scope is there for crossover and intrigue.

I would be almost disappointed if such intrigue was not present. Did the noble Bard tell tales of but one thread, or those of plots intertwining?

From the pattern of selections, I sought to learn which plays were most likely included because of the profusion of rejected roles. Or other patterns, amongst a player's selections, which would suggest a common source play. Thus, one could start drawing together strands that might form a thread; with other threads, it may even form a rope with which to lynch an evildoer.

And when but strands are all one has, one should not let them pass by in the hope that some follish slip will send threads or a whole rope into our hands.

This I did not lay out for fear of guiding scum away from a mistake; annoyingly, I make but little of the results. Surely a character from the Scottish Play is here; heuristically predicted, one might say. A Winter's Tale, Hamlet and Much Ado also might be represented.

I am not pictured in the Doodle. And each claiming their play outright... a gift to lynchers, a trap for scum. A worthwhile tradeoff, at an early stage, perhaps.

To jimbob's question, I ask more clearly: Didst thou seek to steer the hand of the mod, by choosing three characters not known to seek death and destruction? Or was your third choice... complex, conflicted, capable of being seen as either hero or villain? Or was Belch thy most villainous pick (for I know not that play well)?

The same question Sabrar may answer, though his reasoning has been offered. Didst thou consider the mod's choice, or just pick favoured characters from a favoured play? How dost thou feel about not stepping in to the shoes of Alexis Denisof as he discovers love for Amy Acker?

jimbob's vote is early but his few chances to post make it perhaps wise. Lynching the lurker feels... like the easy option here; a light, swift wagon to push, to get oneself to tomorrow. I shall have a think about where to place my vote.

And I should really sing. Tomorrow.

Actually, that segues nicely.

♫♪Tomorrow Tomorrow never comes What kind of a fool Do they take me for Tomorrow A resting place for bums A trap set in the slums But I know the score...♪♫

Unstoppable force of nature. That means she/her/hers.Has committed an act of treason.

Echo244 wrote:Didst thou consider the mod's choice, or just pick favoured characters from a favoured play? How dost thou feel about not stepping in to the shoes of Alexis Denisof as he discovers love for Amy Acker?

As mention'd ere we simply hath chosen characters from the playeth we wast most familiar with, played by actors whose work we eke did enjoy elsewhere. We gaveth nay bethought about ordering those folk in any kind of preference.It would has't been foolish from us to desire yond others would also pick from the same playeth and we nev'r did imagine such interactions to beest possible. Still the noble Denisof plays a bumbling fool with such empathy that it would has't been an honor to followeth in his footsteps and give our own interpretation.

Though it may beest unwise in the short term, we feeleth that f'r the sake of an enjoyable game lurkers shouldst be dealt with one way or another. If nay better alternative shall present itself we shalt feel comfortable with our vote going yond way.

I pray your forgiveness, one and all, for my absence. This weekend hath contained a holiday of a public kind, the which I deigned to pass with family. With apologies now aside, to business:Sabrar, we have been well impressed with thy play in other roles of late, and so it must be said that given the choice, thee thyself wouldst be mine scummate.As to the question of a mass-claim? I have said in the past that I am not well pleased by the notion that players should discuss when to claim so early in the piece - such information serves to benefit scum by giving them a deadline for confecting a false claim.

Echo244 wrote:Here lies my reasoning: If a lyncher is among us, they must be from the same play as their victim, no?

I would not take this to be true as given. To wit, in dealing out my role, the use of words was such as to suggest that the events we players find ourselves playing take place after those for which we are well known - thus, could our motives and our relationships not have changed? All interactions between we eight must be constructed, so could not an enmity between two players be so created?

Something I missed before, but may be worthy of note: Sabrar always refers to himself in the plural. Could this mean he is in fact more than a single person, like the 3 Witches or Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who others put in? Or is it perhaps the "royal we" that he uses (was such even common in Shakespeare's time? I know little of the history of British English)?

This day ist one of mist and fog. It doth make it hard to see the right way forward. I do not complain, simply I do explain my thoughts.

In answer to the Lady Echo: I didst not consider what alignment our great Lord Moderator wouldst give to each of our characters, although I do admit that the one given me to play ist the one most likely to have been made evil.

Thou also dismisseth a Lyncher to easily, methinks, for heuristically_alone hast either unusual knowledge at this stage of the game, namely that Brutus is present and is scum, or hast almost claimed lyncher. He doth say that envie he doth have. Mayhaps his envie is for this character.

Indeed, that last point leadeth me to believe that the name of a role that we play insufficient alone may be, their alignment to prove. An emotion of anger or hatred could easily render an otherwise innocent character one to fear.

Carlington hath said something that hast caught my eye and suggesteth him to be no scum player. This information I'd be willing to share, but I doth hope from others this same clue I wilt find.

Unvote Carlington

Alas I do as yet see none who scum clearly are. If all else faileth, I say we should lynch one who seemeth unhelpful, namely heuristically_alone, for if he a Lyncher do be, lies and falsehoods he is likely to spread, his goal to achieve. Consideration this doth further require, and I wilt further think on this later. In case I do not get a chance due to the winds of life however, I will now:

Catching a liar on the very first day is a vexing task and unlikely to cometh to fruition unambiguously. We need a collection of small signs yond point us in the right direction. Answering any questions shouldst come easy and quick to all those who has't not aught to hide as they may speaketh their minds clearly and in earnest. The villains amongst us howev'r shall needeth time to figure out if thither wast any hidden traps and most likely shall carefully ponder their reply. (In hindsight having pos'd our questions so shortly ere the end of the week wast most unfortunate as it certes weakens the possible inferences we might has't drawn).Furthermore based on the previous game it is likely yond they art forbidden to communicate during the day and so might not but answer on their own. We bethink there'd beest only a handful of players bold enough to name their actual partner hither as scum generally wanteth to avoid their connection to be known. Shouldst we successfully catcheth one of those folk in a forswear and subsequently lynch them, their answer might be considered a point in fav'r regarding their choice.

Upon reviewing the answers we behold upon the following players with a bit more suspicion:

Carlington: Did answer late (though he hadst solid reasons to do so). Unwilling to discuss deadline for mass-claim, we findeth his reasoning strange as in our opinion simply knowing such time does not help scum in creating a believable false personality f'r themselves.Djehutynakht: gaveth 3 names as possible partners, perchance a way to playeth it safe? Eke dodges the issue of the mass-claim with a question of his own.heuristically_alone: declines to answer though he has't ample opportunity. Singles out the reply of SirGabriel as suspicious but we disagree with his assessment.

Zounds, if thou willst hear my reasons in clearer terms thou needest but ask. Should the possibility of a mass claim be raised well in advance, we might lose what little advantage stands to be gained in catching them off their guards - should the mass claim appear as if from the very air, scum must needs concoct a false claim post-haste. However, should they know that a mass-claim may be on the horizon, they have time to get their stories straight ahead of time - perhaps even in conjunction if they may speak together only under shroud of night's dark.

We see thy meaning though we'd assume yond nay scum would beest such fool as not to prepare f'r that eventuality well in advance, even without outside prompt.

On another note shouldst the fair lady and the gentle knight consider it beneficial we could findeth it in our heart at some point to reveal the commandment that has been decre'd for us, though we shall observe that in the previous game thither wast mechanics present that did rely on a player having access to such kind of information (though beneficial at that occasion). Who is't to know if 't be true this time around?

T'is an outrage to see such lackluster performance! Night is upon us and nary a read is to beest seen. All shouldst be aware yond sharing thy thoughts is crucial in the attempt to catcheth those devilish souls who would seek to destroy us.

Sadly thither is nay clear target f'r our wrath. We hath found valorous content in the fair lady's posts and art once again mostly suspicious of the gentleman with the unpronounceable name due to lurking and evasive answers. Meanwhile jimbob did present a fine case 'gainst our newjoiner and whilst we dismiss not such an action on principle, we would once again caution anyone to judge a stranger on experience restrict'd to a different community. Still, his posts wast unhelpful and he didst dram to dispel our doubts. But f'r anon we shalt followeth our own lead in the desires yond it shall elicit a reply.

I suppose now is the time to vote. Were all else equal, I would vote for heuristically_alone, as his posts mostly seem to be utter nonsense and so are not helpful. Yet he is a new face in these parts, and it would be a shame to lynch him on his first day without a strong case against him. So instead I will

Carlington, on lynchers there was naught else to sayThey seem unlikely in this play.Pray, All this talk of Brutus confound.Faith in mod's words you should ground.There are here eight different worksWho would wield the killing dirks?

If you want my help with scum,Well, fine, let me tell you my snooping's sum.

I accuse noble SabrarFor him, alas, he claimed too far.

Sabrar uses "the royal we", reserved for a King.Yet there are none in Much Ado About Nothing.

To make sure that I was not mistakenThe play I've checked, a look I've taken.Neither Don Pedro, or even bastard-brother JohnUse a "we", my conclusion's forgone.

"We's" his restriction, I'm bound to guessThis would not have doomed him, though, if we were to press.Many false-claim would work--of noble kings there are some.But Sabrar chose a play in where there are none.

And even then, you may notice, if you tryHe did not say he chose "Much Ado" characters, the slySabrar only said that they 'intrigu'd' him so.And thus avoided answering his own question. Woe!

I do suspect Sabrar villains did chuseAnd picked "Much Ado" as a cleverful ruse.

DJ makes a good point. And it being day 1 plus him having to rhyme every line (or so I presume) may explain his lack of content thus far.

Unvote

At this point I'm torn between voting Alone and Sabrar. For now, I think I'll do neither, as I should be on shortly before deadline, and the mod has made it clear there is no risk of a no-lynch. I would like to hear Sabrar's defense, which perhaps should include a role claim (just the name and play, no need to reveal powers yet) and why he picked the roles he did.

1. My third character is also from Much Ado About Nothing but I'm not going to fully claim just because of silly accusation.2. The 'royal we' I adopted by myself to represent the ambition my character has in my mind and also to have some fun. I will leave it off in the future.3. My true restriction is that my posts may not contain more than 2 handful of lines (though it does not say on how large a screen).4. I adhere to this strictly, counting quotes, votes, mod-questions and even empty lines alike. Check it.5. If this is all Djehutynakht has to offer as an accusation then it is role-fishing and OMGUS at its fullest.6. Seriously though, how stupid do you think I would be to choose a false-claim that is inherently contradictory???7. I apologise for not staying in character but my time is short at the moment.8. I'm at UTC+2, will go to sleep in ~2 hours, so if you have any further questions please ask now.9. Should be online before deadline though.10. Good night to all.

Sabrar. Talks much. Wishes for greater engagement. Asks open questions, to get the game moving. If scum, we're in trouble. Likely royal. Which makes no sense when contrasted with his other claimed character selections, all from a play without Kings. Worth preserving, if still worth watching.

Dje. Limited contribution. Interesting suggestion of playclaiming that's gone nowhere. Has guided discussion away from lynchers, or tried to. Points at Sabrar. Strong conclusion from what? I don't know. Not pinging me as scum right now. Could be more helpful, but... nyuh, words are hard to rhyme. Preserve... for now.

Carlington. Minimal contribution for life reasons. One or two points that intrigued me. And yet, I feel I know him not. Focusses on the timing of a mass-claim being a surprise, which strikes me as too... divorced from looking for scum. Little besides. I called him an easy wagon to push. This does not mean his wagon should not be pushed. Lynch candidate.

freezeblade. Complex mix of characters. Hates D1. No engagement on this page (or I'm blind and missed it), though that may be a weekend/time zone thing. Believes in a last-minute mass-claim, though I've pointed out that some among us may be restricted from such actions. Some early promise, then gone quiet. Lynch candidate.

jimbob. Supportive of others plans, not really new observations. Two non-obviously-evil roles rejected, though one was a great nuisance. First to post the closest thing to a list of reads as we've had. Early vote for Carlington, switched to heuristically. Concerned about lynchers.

SirGabriel. Started the "roles not picked" plan. Chose roles that seemed more aligned to the game than the stage. Perhaps wisely. Reasonable engagement. I approve of his "mass claim while there's a chance to check contradictions" plan. Reads list helps.

Ninja'd by Sabrar. Hmmmm. That post nudges his position half a notch townwards. I don't think his character is a "good guy" but I do think Sabrar is likely to be non-scum. Otherwise... well, this would be a pretty crude WIFOY ploy. I'd expect more of Sabrar.

<Dithers>

I'm going to ponder and vote in an hour or so.

Unstoppable force of nature. That means she/her/hers.Has committed an act of treason.

Nyuh. Posted that before passing commennt on jimbob and SirG. Both worth keeping for now, though IGMEOY jimbob for the fear of lynchers. I'm looking at heuristically, Cralington and freezeblade for a potential vote.

Unstoppable force of nature. That means she/her/hers.Has committed an act of treason.

For one who hands down an OMGUS accusationFrustrated you seem when accused, far short of placation.It's only day 1, "Silly" you call me,Can you say any other votes come with more authority?

You need not abandon your royal pretensions If you can prove post restriction is not your intention.

I do not seek to offendTo hunt scum is my honest end.Yes my thoughts on Sabrar are but speculation.But on D1, who else can provide more authentication?

As for your thoughts, Echo, that from Lyncher-discussion I sayI find it unhelpful on any single line of thought to stayFor if we focus on one vague theory and we are wrongThen tomorrow we sing a townie funeral song.

Djehutynakht wrote:Frustrated you seem when accused, far short of placation.It's only day 1, "Silly" you call me,

1. My tone's but a third restriction that I try to use Comes from my emotion (that of a short fuse).2. Pray tell me where I did for it's not my methodology, if you feel offended please accept my humble apology.

My sympathies to freezeblade; I too spend much of each day being a problem betwixt chair and keyboard. And my weekend activities... well, I can understand the desire for a change of scenery.

And yet, more couldst thou have offered.

And yet, and yet... more hast thou not offered in games gone past. So, entirely in character for the play not within a play.

Nyarrrgh. I know not a clear path.

Vote Carlington

For thou hast posted more, and said less. Lynchers from the same play, you deny. A mass claim, is left to be untimed, though the notion that scum will be troubled by the uncertainty of when it may come must be jest. Into fog, do you push things. The clear light of day is what aids Town.

A weak vote this may be, and yet, my strongest read. If in error this vote turns out to be, I shall offer my sorrow at turning this play so soon to Tragedy.

Unstoppable force of nature. That means she/her/hers.Has committed an act of treason.